tv Moyers Company PBS April 28, 2013 8:00pm-9:01pm PDT
>> this week o"moys & company" -- >> secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of government power. one of the only avenues we have left for learning what people in power do are whistleblowers, people who essentially step out and risk their individual liberty, and that's why there's such a war being waged against them. >> and -- >> we talk sometimes about parties versus outside groups. no, no, no. the outside groups are part of the political parties, and so too are the media outlets. >> if you have a government that can't function, or that gets caught up in a war of the roses whe whas most importa is doing short-term damage to the other side, shed a little blood so that you can take over and implement a revolution, we're all going to lose.
>> announcer: funding is provided by -- carnegie corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. the kohlberg foundation. independent production fund, with support from the partridge foundation, a john and polly guth charitable fund. the clements foundation. park foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. the herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. the bernard and audre rapoport foundation. the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org." anne gumowitz. the betsy and jesse fink foundation. the hkh foundation. barbara g. fleischman. and by our sole corporate sponsor, mutual of america, designing customized individual and group retirement pructs. that's why we're your tireme
company. >> welcome. in theftermah of the boston bombings and the massive manhunt which led to the death of one suspect and the arrest of another, both of them muslims, there have been calls for increased surveillance and scrutiny of the public at large and muslims in particular. on fox news the other day, new york congressman peter king said, "if you know a threat is coming from a certain community, that's where you have to look." proceed with caution here, mr. king. and first take a look at that "council on foreign relations" analysis of an fbi study showing that from 1980 to 2001, around two-thirds of domestic terrorism was carried out by american extremists who were not muslims. that number actually skyrocketed to 95% in the years immediately after 9/11. and the magazine "mother jones" found that of the 62 mass
shootings in america since 1982 -- mass killings defined as four deaths or more -- 44 of the killers were white males. my guest, the journalist and columnist glenn greenwald, was flying here from his home in brazil as events in boston were unfolding. the investigation once again raised issues of civil liberties in the fight against terrorists. so, we reached out to glenn greenwald, who, as a former constitutional and civil rights litigator, keeps his critical and contrarian eye on potential conflicts between national security and individual liberty. among his best-selling books, "how would a patriot act?" and most recently, "with liberty and justice for some: how the law is used to destroy equality and protect the powerful." currently, glenn greenwald writes regularly for "the guardian." you can read him on their website. welcome, glenn. it's good to see you again. >> great to be back. >> was it right, in your opinion, for the suspect in
boston to be charged as a criminal rather than an enemy combatant? >> absolutely. there were very few people who even took seriously the idea that he ought to be charged as an enemy combatant for many reasons, including the fact that he's an american citizen on us oil. and if there's one thing we're taught to think about our country, it's that the government can't punish people or put them in cages or threaten them with death without charging them with a crime, giving them a trial with a jury of their peers, and then convicting them beyond a reasonable doubt. but the broader question is, should we change or radically alter or dismantle our standard protocols of justice in the name of terrorism. that's been the debate we've been having since the september 11th attack. and i'm firmly in the camp that we need not and should not do that. and therefore he should be treated like any other criminal. >> if it turns out that he and his brother had some significant contact with a radical organization back in their home country, would that change anything in your mind? >> well, i think that the most important thing that we need to start asking --
and if that were the case, this question would become even more urgent -- is why is it that there seem to be so many people from so many different parts of the world willing to risk their lives or their liberty in order to bring violence to the united states, includinto random americans whom they don't know. there has to be something very compelling that drives somebody to do that. and this was the question that was asked in the wake of the 9/11 attack in the form of the sort of iconic question, "why do they hate us?" and the government needed to answer that question because people were quite rightly asking. and the answer that was fed to them was, "well, they hate us for our freedom." and i think ten years, 11 years later, people are very cynical about that answer and realize that's not really the reason. because what you see is that people from parts of the world that weren't part of 9/11 are now starting to attack the united states as well. and when they're heard -- which is rare, but sometimes they
are -- about what their motive was, invariably, they cite the fact that they have become so enraged by what americans e doing to muslims around the world -- to their countries in terms of bombing them, imprisoning them without charges, drone attacking them -- interfering in their governments, propping up their dictators -- that they feel that they have not only the right but the duty to attack america back. and so i think the discourse thenughto really be focused on what is driving this war. how is it that we can do something that will, instead of perpetuating it further and exacerbate it further, start to think about how to undermine and dilute the sentiments that continue to fuel it, you know, 12 years after the 9/11 attacks. >> you wrote the other day of america's invisible victims. and they are? >> the invisible victims are the women and children and innocent men who the united states continues to kill in places like
tribal regions in pakistan, in yemen, in somalia, in afghanistan, at times in the philippines. places throughout the muslim world where the united states sends flying robots. we never hear about who those people are. and you can contrast it with the few instances in which the united states is attacked, we learn the names of the victims. we know their lives. we hear from how their family members are grieving. we never hear any of that in terms of the children, the women, and innocent men whom we kill in the muslim world. and it's sort of an "out of sight, out of mind" dynamic whereby not hearing about them, we never think about them. and by not thinking about them, we forget that they exist. and that's when somebody attacks the united states. it leads to this bewilderment, like, "well, what have we ever done to anybody that would make them want to attack us?" >> i think you were traveling when the boston siege was unfolding. is that right? when did you -- >> right. >> when did you actually find out that it was happening? >> what happened was, i was flying overnight to the
united states on thursday night, which is when the shootout took place between the two brothers and the police, in which the older one was killed. and then, friday morning, when i got off the plane at jfk, was really the start of when people woke up and heard that there was this intense manhunt for the younger brother. and because i was traveling, i was generally in public places for the next several days in airports, hotels, restaurants. and what i saw was everybody glued to the television in order to observe and engage with a very political event, which was this manhunt. and the reason that struck me was because there are very few events that really engage most people in the united states on a political level. maybe there's one or two events like that every few years, maybe a national presidential election. but this was one of them. >> why do you call it a political event? >> well, it was political because it was infused with all kinds of political messages about muslims, about radicalism,
about what the proper role of the police and the military are in the united states. there were instantly these calls for greater surveillance. there was a lockdown of boston in a very eraornary act on a major american city, would be completely locked down. what you could see in how people were observing, what it was that they were watching, was their political impressions about the world, about their government, about political debates being formed, based on the very few incidents that they really pay attention to. and i think that's the reason why incidents like this are incredibly significant in an enduring way, because it shapes how people who don't pay much attention to politics regularly really think about the world. >> and you think viewers, were evaluating this manhunt that was playing out in front of them through a political lens? >> absolutely. i mean, it's inherently the case. because when somebody does something, like detonates two
bombs -- one of which is placed behind an eight-year-old child, which it kills -- and then tears off the limbs of dozens of other people, none of whom are known to the perpetrators -- the question naturally arises, why would any human being engage in that behavior? and generally, when the person is a white christian or a white american, there's an attempt instantly to assure everybody that it's simply kind of a one-off. that it doesn't have a political content, that the person is mentally ill -- that they're a lone actor, that they just snap, is usually the jargon, to assure everybody that there's no political conclusions that ought to be drawn. when the person though is muslim, everything reverses. so there's no consideration to the possibility that they were mentally ill, that they simply snapped, that they were being driven by political considerations of alienation or frustration about things in their lives. instead, there's an assumption that this bolsters the idea that we face this grave and potentially even existential
threat from radical muslims against whom we've been fighting this decade-long war. and it really bolsters the premises of that war by ratcheting up the fear levels and by reaffirming the political convictions in which it's grounded. >> but you agree that terrorism is a threat and has to be dealt with. not only in trying to understand what provokes it, but in trying to prevent it. >> sure, it's the responsibility of the u.s. government to prevent its citizens from being killed and attacked in the way that they were attacked in boston. unfortunately, the answers that are typically offered to that question -- of how can the government protect us -- usually end up not only not protecting us, but making the threat worse. so that's the problem, as i see it. is that the more we react by saying, "well, we now need to go bomb further with drones. we need to infiltrate and surveil more. we need to put muslims under more of a microscope and be more aggressive how we attack them
when we think they're a threat -- i think the worse this problem becomes. i think that's the problem, is that the policies justified in the name of stopping terrorism have actually done more to exacerbate that threat and to render us unsafe than any other single cause. >> that raises the really deep question, the serious question, of how do we thrive as an open society and become the country that we wanted to become, when we are faced with the knowledge that these attacks can come when and where we don't expect them. >> well, this is e problem, is that the reality is that if you have an open society, then you can't prevent attacks like this. you can build enormous structures of security to prevent people from going on airplanes with bombs or guns, but then what do you do about trains or crowded malls or times square? and i think then that really
underscores the choice that we have, which is number one, we can do what we've been doing -- which is become a more closed society. authorize the government to read our emails. listen iour telephone cas put people in prison without charges, enact laws that make it easier for the government to do those sorts of things. or we can try and understand why it is that people want to come here and do that? and so the question then becomes, why are people wanting to attack united states this way, but not dozens and dozens and dozens of countries around the world. and i think we need to get to the bottom of that question in order to figure out how to stop these attacks, is to undermine the motive. >> here in new york city this week, a lot of officials -- including the police commissioner -- have been saying-- praising surveillance cameras that were so helpful in boston and saying, "we need far more of those," and are asking for them. are we moving into an era where the government is going to know more and more about each and every one of us? >> we are close to that already.
there was a "washington post" series in 2010 called "top secret america," three-part series by dana priest and william arkin. and one of the facts that reported was that the national security agency, every day, collects and stores 1.7 billion, that's with a b, billion, emails, telephone calls, and other form of electronic communications by and between american citizens. and what's amazing is, is that if you look at the case in boston, the surveillance state, this massive apparatus of monitoring and storing information about us that we've constructed over the last decade that's extremely expensive and invasive really didn't do much. it didn't detect the attack before it started. the attempted times square attack in 2010 wasn't stopped because of eavesdropping or government surveillance but because a hot dog vendor noticed something amiss with the bomb that had been left. so again, the surveillance state doesn't really do much in terms of giving us lots of security. but what it does do, is it
destroys the notion of privacy, which is the area in which human creativity and dissent and challenges to orthodoxy all reside. the way things are supposed to work is we're supposed to know everything that the government does with rare exception, that's why they're called the public sector. and they're supposed to know almost nothing about us, which is why we're private inividuals -- unle there's evidence that we've committed a crime. this has been completely reversed, so that we know almost nothing about what the government does. it operates behind this impenetrable wall of secrecy, while they know everything about what it is we're doing, with whom we're speaking and communicating, what we're reading. and this imbalance, this reversal of transparency and secrecy and the way things are supposed to work, has really altered the relationship between the citizenry and the government in very profound ways. >> is it conceivable to you that -- that giving up our privacy and even much of our liberty becomes a way of life in exchange, a trade for security?
tom brokaw suggested as much the other day. here he is. >> everyone has to understand tonight however that beginning tomorrow morning, early, there e going to be ougher security considerations all across the country. however exhausted we may be by them, we're going to have to learn to live with them and get along and go forward and not let them bring us to our knees. you'll remember last summer how unhappy we were with all t security at the democratic and republican convention. now i don't think that we could raise those complaints after what happened today in boston. >> i mean, i think that is, first of all, it's extraordinary that journalists lead the way in encouraging people to accept greater government intrusion into their lives. the media, journalists, are supposed to be adversarial to the government, not encouraging people to submit to greater government authority. but i think the broader point is that it's that false dichotomy -- that the more the government learns about us, the
safer we'll be. in part because what history shows is that when governments are able to surveil people in the dark, generally the greatest outcome is that they abuse that power and it becomes tyrannical. if you talk to anybody who came from eastern europe, they'll tell you that the reason we left is because society's become deadened and soulless, when citizens have no privacy. and it's a difficult concept to understand, why privacy is so crucial, but people understand it instinctively. they put locks on their bedroom doors, not for security, but for privacy. they put sswos on their email accounts, because people know that only when you can engage in behavior without being watched is that where you can explore, where you can experiment, where you can engage in creative thinking, in creative behavior. a society that loses that privacy is a society that becomes truly conformist. and i think that's the real danger. >> that's what happens to people in power, as you know. henry kissinger may have been
joking back in 1975 when off the record, although it was later transcribed, he said, "the illegal we can do immediately. the unconstitutional takes a little longer." >> secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of government power. if people are able to operate in the dark it is not likely or probable, but inevitable that they will abuse their power. it's just human nature. and that's been understood for as long as politics has existed. that transparency is really the only guarantee that we have for checking those who exercise power. and that's the reason why the government has progressively destroyed one institution after the next designed to bring transparency -- whether it's the media that they turned into the supine creatures or the congress that does more to empower government secrecy than any other -- or the courts that have been incredibly subservient towards sources of government secrecy. one of the only avenues we have
left for learning what people in power do are whistleblowers. people who essentially step out and risk their individual liberty, andhat's why h a there them. >> a war being waged against whistleblowers? >> there have been more prosecutions whistleblowers under the espionage act, which is a 1917 statute under world -- enacted in world war i, designed to enable woodrow wilson to punish people who were opposed to the united states involvement in that war. more prosecution of whistleblowers under that statute, under the obama administration, than all previous administrations combined. just in the last four years, double the number, in fact. you've had people who have exposed government deceit and waste and corruption and illegality being systematically prosecuted as criminals in very harsh ways, threatened with decades in prison, being prosecuted as spies, essentially, under espionage statute. whereas the people on whom they blew the whistle, the actual bad actors in the government, have been shielded and protected.
and what this is designed to do is to send a message -- as every investigative journalist in the united states will tell you, including ones who work for the most established of newspapers -- to send a message to would-be sources and whistleblowers, who want to advise the public about government wrongdoing, that they better think twice because they will be severely punished if they do so. >> one of our best journalists, jonathan landay of "mcclatchy" has turned up evidence from government documents that president obama and his senior aides have not been telling the truth when they claimed to have only deployed drones against known senior leaders of al qaeda and their allies. the headline above your column on jonathan's reporting referred to the obama administration's "drone lies." tough language. >> "the mcclatchy" article included language that the obama administration at senior levels had misled the country and was deceitful becae what these documents showed was, that often times, they were targeting very
low level people whose role in these militias were unknown. they had targeted, as a favor to the pakistani government, various individuals who posed no threat to the united states, but who pakistan thought had become extremists. and worst of all, the united states government has adopted what are called "signature strikes" which is where, even by their own admission, they don't even know the identity of the people they're targeting. and they simply extinguish their lives without knowing who they are. but then justify it to the public by saying, "we're only targeting senior al qaeda leaders." and these leaked documents revealed how false those claims were. and again, it underscores how only leaks and whistleblowing, which the obama administration is trying to criminalize harshly, is the way that we learn about what the government does. >> you are a lawyer as well as a journalist and an essayist. what's the distinction between death by drones in a tribal area
in afghanistan and pakistan, and what the bombers did in boston, in your mind? >> i don't think there is much difference. you could certainly say that one difference -- and this is what people would typically say to defend what the united states does and to distinguish it, is that we are not deliberately killing civilians while the people in boston did. and i'm not sure how true that is. there certainly are cases where the united states has very recklessly killed civilians. but even the drone program itself, in its normal operating state, consists of a very high level of possibility that innocent people will be killed in places where there hasn't been a declared war, that aren't on a battlefield. in people's homes, in their work places, where they congregate in their villages. and so at some point, when a government engages in behavior year, after year, after year, after year -- that continues to kill innocent people in a very foreseeable way, and continues to do that,
in my mind that reaches a level of recklessness that is very similar to intentional killing. >> you are contrarian on this, because there's a reputable poll which shows that 65% of the american people support drones. >> right, i mean, this is what we were going back to a little bit earlier, which is that people have been inculcated to believe those falsehoods that the obama administration has been propagating about drones, that they only target high-level terrorists. and when you combine that assumption, that false assumption with the invisibility of the victims -- so that americans never have to think about the human cost, both to the people we're kiing and ultimately to themselves from the security threat that it produces -- it's very easy to have a warped understanding of the cost of benefits it's deliberately inducing people to view these drone attacks in a much more favorable way than reality would suggest. >> so what's playing out here? is it human nature, media,
politics, propaganda, as you say, fear? all of the above? >> i think it's all of the above. i mean, there have be all kinds of political theorists, statesmen, leaders, philosophers throughout history who have talked about the dangers that come from allowing a government to ratchet up fear levels by continuously focusing on external threats and enemies. that this is the greatest menace to liberty domestically. i think what ultimately happens -- the worst part of it is that when you continuously induce people to support militarism and aggression and violence by demonizing a foreign other, what y really dos yo grade theopulion. you transform how it is that they think, the kind of people that they are, the things that they come to expect from life. you really make it a much more savage and bloodthirsty populace that will then support things
that in the absence of that sustained propaganda, they would find horrific. and i think you see lots of examples of that in american discourse. >> do you see long-range implications from what happened in boston? >> absolutely. i mean, one of the most amazing things to me over the last few years was in the aftermath of our killing of osama bin laden, there was all kinds of chanting and marching and celebratory dancing taking place in the street. which was striking to me because, even if you believe that the killing of osama bin laden was justifiable, any time you're killing somebody and dumping their corpse into the ocean, that should be a cause of somber reflection, even if you believe it was necessary. and i think you saw much the same thing in boston. again, the chanting and the sense of collective self-esteem and the reveree for miliry and political and pice institutions, i think is very
disturbing and will really endure. >> but glenn, couldn't it have been just relief? relief that they had found the other guy? that they didn't have to go to bed that night wondering if another bomb would go off? >> sure. i think that relief is a natural reaction, just like i think that relief from the killing of osama bin laden is natural. he had been this sort of hovering menace for so long. but the way in which this was all done, both in boston and then the killing of osama bin laden, is something that is a very extreme form of government behavior and of police force and of military power. but ultimately, what i really think more than anything else -- and this is, i think, what the most profound point is from all of this, is -- i remember the night that osama bin laden was killed and president obama went on television and said, "this shows again that any time america sets its mind to something, our greatness allows us to achieve it." and the reason why that was so striking to me was because it
used to be the case that as a country, wh gave us our sense of nationalistic pride was going to the moon, or discovering new cures for diseases, or investing technologies that elevated the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world. and i think that the way in which americans now relate to their government, that the way in which they get nationalistic pride is through the assertion of this massive, military or police force. and very few other things produce that kind of pride. i think shows a lot about our value system and what the government is failing to do. and that's the way in which this culture becomes coarsened. >> glenn greenwald, it's been good to see you again and i wish you a safe trip home. >> thank you for having me. >> even if the threat of terrorists went away, none of those bold projects glenn greenwald described as
defining american greatness would happen today. our government is paralyzed and dysfunctional, and it's getting worse than ever. just ask norman ornstein and thomas mann, as i'm about to do. for decades, these two political scientists were on the go-to list for beltway pundits and reporters seeking wisdom on the curious ways of governance. but then, almost exactly a year ago to this day, they published an op-ed piece in "the washington post" headlined, "let's just say it: the republicans are the problem." mann and ornstein argued that democracy and the economy are in a crash dive, and that congressional gridlock was largely the fault of the republican party and its takeover by right wing radicals. what's more, they said, the mainstream media was adding to the problem by resorting to "false equivalency," pretending that both parties were equally at fault. the article was based on their book, "it's even worse than it looks: how the american constitutional system collided with the new politics of
extremism." a paperback edition, with a new preface and afterword, will be out later this year. thomas mann is the w. averell harriman chair and a seniorellow in governance studies at the brookings nstituti. norman ornstein is resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. in their book, "it's even worse than it looks," they predicted, "if president obama gets re-elected but faces either a continuing divided congress or a congress with republicans in charge of both houses, there is little reason to expect a new modus vivendi in which the president and gop leaders are able to find reasonable compromises in areas like budget policy, health reform and financial regulation." welcome to the both of you. >> great to be with you, bill. >> thank you, bill. >> okay, the election's come and gone and the deep dysfunction that has gripped our government for so many years now is still with us. what are you thinking today? >> you know, the election was even more stunning, in a way, in its sweep than we might have imagined.
so you would have thought things would be different. maybe in an issue or two, like immigration, it will be. but if you look at the gun issue, the background check, so much of the focus has been on the four democratic apostates who drifted away from their party. 41 of 45 republicans voted no. that includes people from states that wouldn't natully be a part of a big gun culture. what's the reason? it's the tribalism we described in the book that continues. if he's for it, we're against it. we're not going to give him a victory, even if we were for it yesterday. and i'm afraid that pathology is still a driving force, dramatically so in the house, a little bit less in the senate. but as we saw with background checks, not quite enough. >> sadly, divided party government, which we have because of the republican house, in a time of extreme rtisan polarization, is a formula for
inaction and absolutist opposition politics, not for problem solving. you know, it wasn't that long ago when you could actually get something done under divided government. there'd be enough members of the opposition party who want to legislate, not simply to engage in what we used to call the permanent campaign is now a permanent war. but that doesn't happen anymore now. it's republicans are unified in their oppositions, or beholden to a "no new tax" pledge that really keeps the country, the congress, and its political system from dealing honestly and seriously with the problems we face. >> well, take the gun vote again. it occurred to me that senate majority leader harry reid may have made a fatal blunder when
he caved earlier in thyear and didn't go for the end of the filibuster, as he could have. do you agree with that? >> i have mixed feelings about that, bill. the difficulty that harry reid faced was to do this would cause a lot of turmoil in the senate. there are so many other ways that a minority party can bollix up the works. and it's worth a price, if it's going to lead to legislative outcomes. but with a republican house, all those bills passed would have met a graveyard. >> they could have still blocked it over in the -- >> could have still -- >> anything that -- >> -- blocked it. >> -- passed in the senate. >> so he went for a deal with mitch mcconnell which makes it easier, if the two leaders want to do something, to overcome individual rogue senators, like a ted cruz or a rand paul. but it didn't bank on, he didn't bank on the republican leader basically going back to where he had been for the first four years of the obama administration on nominations for judges and top
administration officials, and on a whole host of bills, and once again raising the bar to 60 routinely. >> you really surprised me last year, because i know how hard you both have worked to be bipartisan and to work with democrats and republicans, but you were very blunt in the way you came out and finally, you know -- >> yeah. >> -- named names and pointed fingers. you wrote, "the two parties are not equally to blame because the republicans have become extreme both in," quoting you, "in terms of policy and process." and you're saying here today, a year later, that's still the case? >> it's very much the case, bill. we had no choice but to say it. it was in some ways, it was obvious if you -- if you look at the situation, and there is a body of scholarly research that has demonstrated this rightward march of the party -- both among elected officials, but also rank-and-file republicans.
and the strongest, most extreme of those, the tea party people, have pulled the others back toward them. it's a reality, and it's not just ideological difference either. they begin with those differences, but then it's the strategic hyper-partisanship, what norm referred to earlier -- if barack obama is for something, we have to be against it because he's not a real american. >> let me just offer a bit of a caveat here on two fronts. first, we're not saying' democrats are angels here. plenty of flaws there. but i also hold out still some hope for the senate. you have a number of republicans in the senate, and this has less to do with ideology than with focus. are you there to solve problems, or are you there either to pursue a radical agenda or to gain political advantage? everybody's going to look for political advantage. there are problem-solvers in the senate. they are flawed ones, as we saw with the gun bill.
you know, people like lamar alexander or bob corker, who joined with most of their colleagues. but i've talked to them when it comes to either reforming the nomination process, doing something in a larger fiscal sense that will include revenues, acting on immigration. i think you've got some opportunities here. those opportunities will go to the house, and the only way they'll pass is with far more democrats than republicans. and they may not make it through. but we don't have a lost cause yet in the senate. now, the recent evidence is not great on that front. and the fundamental pathologies that we wrote about and talked about and we just felt an obligation that we'd built up some capital over the years. what's it for if you're not going to spend it now? >> you riled the republicans but you riled the press by talking about false equivalency. their evenhanded treatment of decidedly uneven behavior on the part of the two parties, the equal treatment for true and
false statements by advocates, equal weight to competing spin between opposing politicians and pundits without regard to the accuracy of either. you didn't get invited on the sunday talk shows after that, did you? >> and still haven't been. >> you noticed that? it's because those programs are predicated upon having spin from one side and then the other side. we're not the first to point out the, this artificial balance. i mean, reporters, good reporters do it partly out of a sense of professionalism, to be fair. to be wary of allowing your own personal political views to influence your writing. all of that is good. but now it's a safety valve. it keeps you from being charged as a partisan. it satisfies your producers, worried about advertising.
and frankly, it's become really quite pernicious. we point out example after example in the book where they treat clearly unequal behavior as equivalent. >> you know it's not even that we weren't invited on the sunday shows. it's the radio silence on the topic. so you mention "the washington post" piece that appeared at right at the time that the book was published. and it just exploded on the scene -- frankly, partly because of the title, which was "let's just say it: republicans are the problem." you know, within less than 24 hours ter it was up unannounced on "the washington post" website, they had 5,000 comments. they stopped counting after that. we got over 265,000 facebook referrals. 1.5 million web hits. that weekend it appeared on a thursday, and then in the paper on sunday. that weekend, this was the topic of discussion in washington. there's no doubt about that. all those sunday shows have panels, their charge being,
let's talk about what people are talking about in washington. nothing. you could invite other people on. you may not want to have us for one reason or another. how can you not raise the issue at all? because it's so uncomfortable for them to even raise the notion that they should focus on the truth rather than this notion of balance no matter what. and that remains the case. >> so look what's happening. senate republicans are filibustering and blocking scores of executive and judicial nominations, as you point out in your new preface. they're delaying the confirmation of others. they're still willing, as you said last year, to use any tactic -- no matter how dangerous and destructive, to damage the president and to force its will on him through a form of policy hostage-taking. you say that this policy hostage-taking was devised by this group, calling itself the "young guns." who are they? >> they are eric cantor, they
are paul ryan, and the third is the republican whip representative mccarthy of california. they laid out before the election a strategy to take hostage the full faith and credit of the united states by threatening not to raise the debt limit to accommodate previous decisions made by congress, and signed by the president. it's hard to imagine a more destructive action that could be taken. we've got problems here, but there is still a flight to the dollar around the world. the one thing we have going for us is people trust the dollar and trust the fact that treasury will pay its obligations when people buy bonds. but they were going to take that hostage in order to get immediate spending cs. >> there was some compromise in january over the, over the deficit. were you encouraged by that?
did you get an adrenaline shot when you -- >> no. and unfortunately. and here's the reason why. i mean, first of all, of course, we knew that the leverage was with president obama in this case -- not with people trying to hold something hostage, because inaction here would mean sharp tax increases across the board. and after that, thepresident can come back and say, "i want to propose the biggest tax cut in history for everybody except those making over $250,000 a year." so you could -- it was clear there would be some kind of a deal that would emerge, whether before or after. one of the things that was discouraging about this is it happened very late in the game, of course, as we know. it was joe biden meeting with mitch mcconnell and coming up with a plan. but here's the plan that gets 89 votes in the senate, including some of the icons of the conservative wing of the party which is really a radical wing of the party, from pat
toomey to jim inhofe and tom coburn. and it goes to the house, and john boehner, who may have the worst job in america could barely get a third of his own party to go along. now, that's a modest deal. if you can't get more than a third of your house republicans to support a deal like this, that doesn't speak well for the prospects of change. >> and you say that he, that cantor more than any other politician helped to crte the series of fiscal crises that you described just a moment ago? >> he really did. he hovered around john boehner as boehner was getting into negotiations with the president over the course of 2011 to head off the debt ceiling crisis. bob woodward -- >> the watergate bob woodward. >> yeah. >> watergate bob woodward has written -- >> now the post-watergate bob woodward. >> -- written a book about these
negotiations and did a lot of talking to the republicans. and ended up saying boehner and obama reached a deal and obama walked away from it. well, eric cantor, in his interview with ryan lizza of "the new yorker" a couple of months ago basically corrected him. he said, well, i talked to boehner and said it really wouldn't be a good idea to reach a deal now because then the issue evaporates. the presidengets the credit, and he has a better chance of being re-elected. better to keep it alive and fight it out in the -- in the election. >> and it didn't pay off for them, did -- >> it didn't pay off at all. >> except they held the house but it didn't pay off for them in the senate. he lost two seats in the senate. didn't pay off for him in winning the presidency? >> it was a -- call it a riverboat gamble, i suppose you could say. because what cantor said in that
interview was -- if we win it all, then we don't have to compromise. they didn't. but the reaction wasn't, all right, now we have to compromise. instead it s, we're still not going to compromise. >> you've said you have some hope for the senate. there is some seeming to have to someone from afar movement on immigration. is that must be hopeful to you? >> it is, but it's so different than everything else. the reason there is movement on immigration is because republicans have such a powerful incentive to move on immigration. >> because they lost the latino vote. politics. >> they're on the verge of being marginalized in presidential politics. they are losing overwhelmingly the latinos, asian-americans, other immigrant groups the young voters. the growing parts of the electorate are moving away from the republicans to the
democrats. they have a reason to do it. hardball politics, not grand, bipartisan consensus. and they've put it together well. it's a group of republicans and democrats who are working out this bill. obama has -- >> in the senate, right? >> in e senate. obama stayed off to the side, as they requested, because it's very hard for marco rubio to support anything the president's campaigning for. so his absence is what they needed to move this along. >> but we shouldn't just focus on the members themselves. there are, in the house, at least a few people who'd like to work to solve some of these problems and boehner among them, i think. and -- >> you really believe that? >> -- some others well, i think, you know, he's sees himself as the speaker of the house. and some of it is political as well. he's being pushed by other forces. but it's really important that we focus as much on the outside forces as the inside ones. >> such as?
>> well, when the fiscal cliff debate came up and we get this bill coming over with 89 votes in the senate, and you had around that time, before those negotiations, boehner trying to get a little traction, knowing there would be a tax increase. coming up with his very poorly named plan b, you know? i think maybe some of his members rejected it because they thought they didn't want an over-the-counter drug here. but it wa give me some traction. i'd propose a million dollars as the level here, and then we can negotiate. and some of his members were ready to support him, just to give him that traction. the club for growth, heritage action step up and basically said, you members, you lift your heads out of that foxhole and support any tax increase, and you've got a target on your backs and millions of dollars in a primary against you. some of this is coming from the kinds of people who we're electing to office, through a nominating process that has gotten so skewed to the radical right.
but some of it is an electoral magnet that pulls them away from voting for anything that might have a patina of bipartisan support because they'll face extinction. >> bill, this is such an important point. nowadays, political parties are not organizations, they're networks. we talk sometimes about parties versus outside groups. no, no, no. the outside groups are part of the political parties, and so too are the media outlets. the large funders. it's a broad system. super pacs don't exist as independent forces. they in fact are run by former party operatives and leaders of one kind or another. and right now, you have a conjunction of forces that you can see in the conservative media, in the funding organizations, and in the grover norquist and the koch brothers.
and it all comes together to provide such overwhelming pressure on individual republicans to toe the line, to oppose even when they want to engage in problem solving. >> so when you mention the club for growth, you're talking about essentially wall street finance group of private citizens who will take on a republican in the primary to defeat him if he doesn't toe the line on what the financial interests want? >> and these are financial interests who don't just focus on financial interests. many of them are themselves radical either libertarians or who he a ry song ideology. and so the club for growth will intervene not just on tax issues, but on others. and they're joined by other groups. you know, when jim demint left the senate -- >> to head the heritage. >> head the heritage foundation, you know. >> right. a very conservative
organization. >> which used to be a think tank. now, of course, it has a 501 (c)4 called heritage action. they're raising money. they're aggressively participating in the political debates, and will in campaigns. because you can have as much impact as tom said, it's all part of a party apparatus now. from the outside, if you use the leverage of money, and you can also use the leverage of the social media, the talk radio hosts, and others, who have such a dominant impact on the party now, that it takes the problem solvers and puts them in a really, really tricky situation. >> you say, in the book, that what we all know: president obama made great efforts to work cooperatively with the republicans during his first term. didn't get him anything in terms of legislation. got him maybe a second term. but in "the new york times" this week, michael shear and peter baker say, call him, "a president who hesitates to twist arms." can you not be president without twisting arms? >> oh, i think that's a myth. >> do you? >> i just think the press is now
overrun with president obama's personal shortcomings. that he doesn't engage, that he doesn't put pressure on members, doesn't tell them what to do. he doesn't give them bourbon and branch water and he -- and he doesn't raise hell with them. and the reality is, is that presidential leadership is contextual. he's operating with a republican party that's part of this broad apparatus. what can he do to any one of those republicans? he can't do anything. he's not in a position to do it. he tried negotiating early, that was his brand, right? the post-partisan president. he realized what he was up against, and then he said, you know, i've got to maneuver, position myself with the democrats in a way that we can get some things done. >> you know, i would say on the gun issue too we'reremature here. it's not only that you can't twist arms in the same way that it might have been available to you before.
and the few arms that he could twist on the democratic side were almost all, with one exception, people who were up for re-election in really tough places. you're always going to tread a little bit more carefully there. and on the republican side, it's not clear what either schmoozing or arm twisting would do. but my guess is you're going to see this, the issue of a background check come back. you're also going to see some executive actions, we're already beginning to see themto make sure that people who shouldn't have access to guns have to go through a process to make it happen. so, it's not only that, this meme in the press: "why can't he be like lyndon johnson or like bill clinton?" as if all the schmoozing that bill clinton did got him a single republican vote for his economic plan. and it took seven months to get the democrats helped his health care plan, or kept him from being impeached. >> yeah, i'm not impressed when people say, well, barack obama's not lyndon johnson. lyndon johnson is -- >> today he couldn't be lyndon johnson. >> couldn't be lyndon johnson. >> this is not the 1960s when
congress had a huge bevy, a large bevy of moderate republicans. so who wins, and who loses, when we have this deadlock and dysfunction? >> well, first of all, the public and future generations really do lose. we have serious problems, short and long term, in the country. we're going to have to figure out how we can compete in a global economy where not just low value but high value jobs may end up elsewhere. we're going to have a radically different workforce as the population changes, not only in terms of having more african american, asian-american and hispanic-americans making up a part of that workforce, but as the population gets older and lives longer. we've got challenges in terms of energy and the environment, how you compete in a globe where the threats are very different ones. if you have a government that can't function, or that gets caught up in a war of the roses where what's most important is doing short-term damage to the
other side, shed a little blood so that you can take over and implement a revolution, we're all going to lose. but think in political terms, i just don't see a republican party that continues down this path. and i'm not alone in that. the jeb bushes of the world, and the haley barbours of the world, and the mitch daniels of the world, and the chris christies of the world see it too. if you move off the mainstream and pursue a radical ideology, and if you say, "we're just not going to make any movement at all," in some of these issues, eventually voters are going to say, "enough of this." >> bill, we've been living through, now years of stagnant wages, of high unemployment, of growing economic inequality. so, the work of our legislature, our governments makes a big difference. and right now, those issues are not being addressed in any substantial way because of the
dysfunctional politics, and because the republican party has drifted so far from the mainstream of our politics. there's oimism, it's one that the old democratic accountability still works. >> small "d" democratic. >> small "d" democratic accountability, that a party that goes so far from the mainstream gets disciplined, gets beaten, gets hit over the head with a two-by-four by the voters. and then other voices can emerge within the party to change things. that's perhaps the most -- the most important. over time, though, wve got changes to make. we simply have to increase the size of the electorate in primary elections as well as -- >> turnout, voters. >> turnout, voters -- >> you see that as the -- >> participation and turnout. it's absolutely key because the
smaller the turnout, the more extreme the views. and the more likely they are to appeal to the very people who are who are defending the core values of that party. >> norman ornstein and thomas mann, "it's even worse than it looks: how the erican constutionalystecolled with the new politics of extremism." thank you for joining me and thank you for writing this. >> thank you, bill. >> thank you, bill. >> america lost a happy warrior and i lost a friend this week, bob edgar, the president of the cizens' lobby common cause. a fearless advocate for a fair and just america. you will find my eulogy for him, and other tributes, at our website, billmoyers.com.
tonight... man: there's an awful lot of stuff going on. an awful lot of information. this country's under threat. we can't always tell you the nature of the threat. man: i've called the two of you together. i want to share a source. woman: i've been living here for a year and i've never caught sight of you. man: do you know anything about her? why do you need to know? because she's taking an interest in me. news reporter: the death has been announced of the director general of mi5. man (on phone): why do you imagine benedict gave me the file? you tell me. do you know the source? do you trust the source? johnny, you need to watch out. you wanted everything out in the open. dad, a man came to see me. man: all other copies of the file have been returned. i want yours back within 12 hours. woman: it's the girl, isn't it? you're doing this for the girl. what was his plan, then? bring down the government? you're going to have to choose sides one day, you know. remember, people get killed in the middle of the road.